quote:The clip shows the scantily clad men on a beach lip-synching to Bette Midlers version of the Hawaiian Christmas song Mali Kalikimaka.

"When I found the video, I thought it would be an excellent way of introducing the children to transgender issues," Winkler, who is gay, wrote in an email to parents.

I have an issue with such an introduction to this aspect of our society, but this part especially I found extremely unacceptable:

quote:"At the end, the guys peeling the banana, acting very sexually with the banana," one parent, Al Smith, told CTV.

There's no doubt in my mind that the only reason a banana would be eaten as such, on a beach, by a drag queen, is entirely for suggestive reasons and I feel that the teacher's suspension was definitely appropriate. Clearly if kids were pulled out of this teacher's class, some kids must have had an issue with it as it came to the parents' awareness after the fact.

So my question is, is it necessary for us to even discuss the existence of this community in school or necessary to teach the differences of sexual orientation?

It's my thought that this should be left up to the parents to teach their kids what the parents feel is appropriate, rather than the school leave it open to teach it however the teacher prefers.

I'm also of the mind that kids are already aware of the existence of this community on their own, at the time that's appropriate for them to naturally understand what's going on.

i think it should be up to the parents to properly educate their children on such subjects...different children have different levels of maturity/understanding, so setting a specific age might be difficult...but i agree, this was a bad move by the teacher.

I think there is a common desire among anybody in a teaching position to educate on issues that they closely identify with. Is this any different than a social teacher showing a PETA video on the Labrador seal hunt? Or a science teacher showing An Inconvenient Truth? Yes, the subject matter and imagery in this case may be very controversial and age inappropriate, but the intent is exactly the same as my other examples.

That all being said, if the video did contain the content described, than it was an inappropriate thing to do. I wonder if the school principal had signed off on it.--I'm a man, but I can change. If I have to. I guess.

I think there is a common desire among anybody in a teaching position to educate on issues that they closely identify with. Is this any different than a social teacher showing a PETA video on the Labrador seal hunt? Or a science teacher showing An Inconvenient Truth? Yes, the subject matter and imagery in this case may be very controversial and age inappropriate, but the intent is exactly the same as my other examples.

That all being said, if the video did contain the content described, than it was an inappropriate thing to do. I wonder if the school principal had signed off on it.

Those are pretty young kids. Do you even teach kids about Hetero issues at that age? Not so much. I think it's up to the parents to determine when that age is, but I'm pretty sure it's older than 8 or 9 (maybe 12 or 13?).

Seems like a wierd way to start educating little kids about the birds and bees, or the bees and bees... I don't think its an orientation thing, I think its a, those kids are probably too young for sex ed kinda thing.

I'm a pretty socially liberal person, but yeah, I question the educational necessity, and appropriateness of teaching 8 and 9 year olds on transgender issues. Having seen some of the products of our public education as an employer and co-worker, could we spend more time on math, science and writing, and less on social engineering efforts?

I viewed the video to see what the fuss was about, and it was mainly silly. It was wrong to show that to a child of any age......or an adult for that matter too. 4 minutes of my life I want back.--Any claim that the root of a problem is simple should be treated the same as a claim that the root of a problem is Bigfoot. Simplicity and Bigfoot are found in the real world with about the same frequency.  David Wong

The parents should receive notice of anything controversial and given the option of intervening

That sounds reasonable, however the issue I see is that some parents will view even the most trivial subject as controversial and demand the curriculum be bent to match their personal view of the world.

Recall the flap over banning the signing of O Canada at one school or the ongoing human rights complaint over singing O Canada without musical accompaniment? That's just our national anthem, what about the parents who think the world is just 6,000 years old, or that girls are inferior to boys, or the ones that object to Remembrance Day?

The parents should receive notice of anything controversial and given the option of intervening

That sounds reasonable, however the issue I see is that some parents will view even the most trivial subject as controversial and demand the curriculum be bent to match their personal view of the world.

The curriculum need not be bent just the individual students participation.

I remember in a place and time long ago yearning to go out in the hall with the other students of different faith and not subjected to the fairy tales of the Christians.

i think it should be up to the parents to properly educate their children on such subjects...different children have different levels of maturity/understanding, so setting a specific age might be difficult...but i agree, this was a bad move by the teacher.

My only issue with this is that if we leave something like this strictly in the hands of parents, we will only continue to have generation after generation of bigots passing their prejudices down to their children.

It's a tough one, because despite how open minded I am on this subject, I probably wouldn't like a teaching doing this when kids are so young, either.

My only issue with this is that if we leave something like this strictly in the hands of parents, we will only continue to have generation after generation of bigots passing their prejudices down to their children.

Is it really that bad though? You portray it as a never ending cycle of bigotry yet it seems to me like LGBT people are accepted in our society in ways that are a stark contrast to decades prior.

And really, who teaches teenagers what to tolerate and not tolerate? Parents? Hmm...

And really, who teaches teenagers what to tolerate and not tolerate? Parents? Hmm...

It should be a parents and not a teachers job.--A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasury.

And really, who teaches teenagers what to tolerate and not tolerate? Parents? Hmm...

Yup, which is all the more reason why tolerance should be taught in school. We do it for people of different ethnic backgrounds from a very early age, I see no reason to teach it to children about sexual orientation as well. My only issue - as I said before - is sexualizing stuff before it needs to be. It's one thing to teach a child that a man can love and be married to another man. It's another to teach kids what they do.

So long as it isn't sexualized, parents who don't like it can go stuff it.

Yup, which is all the more reason why tolerance should be taught in school.

Since we do have a large 'chapter' in the Ontario public curriculum concerning Canada's 'multicultural tapestry', taught to students around the age of 10 (Grade 5), and how we (society) must accept people of differing colours, religions, customs, etc., you offer a good point.

I'm not in agreement when it concerns sexual orientation but it's still a good, debatable point.

I would argue that it's easier for society to encourage kids to accept people of other colours, religions and ethnicities than it is to encourage them to accept people of differing sexual orientations when those differences are biologically repulsive to most of us. Based on that hardwired element, it's tough for me to consider how one could neutrally present this topic to students.

There are many people who would advocate that people of different ethnicity are biologically inferior and, in turn, repulsive as well. Ask David Duke, and I'm sure he would say people are hardwired to find black people, jews and anyone who isn't white biologically repulsive as well. We would *never* consider that kind of viewpoint as acceptable in the society we live in today, but at one time it was the norm. Likewise, these same feelings toward homosexuality will be viewed in the future as the same ignorance and bigotry that we view those people who felt the same way toward people of different ethnicity decades ago. Attitudes are already starting to change, and in the case of the USA it's happening at a rate quicker than most people thought possible. The "biologically repulsive" argument, as a result, simply doesn't fly.

Baring the sexual aspect, full and total equality should still be taught in public schools. Parents who don't like it - regardless of whether it's homosexuality or [insert certain ethnicity here] - can pound sand.

Edit - I should qualify the whole repulsive thing in case it came across as harsher than I intended - sure, people may find the concept of gay sex repulsive. Fair enough. A gay person may feel the same way toward straight sex. As a more extreme example, I also find the whole concept of my Mother and Father having sex repulsive, too. It doesn't mean that I believe that my Mother and Father should not be afforded the same equality as everyone else, or that they themselves shouldn't be allowed to think of it as the *gag* most beautiful thing in the world.

However, I'm not insensitive to a kid who many be part of a family like this, where mom is dad and dad is mom. Or both dads, or both moms. Who cares.

What it comes down too... is this the right age to teach and expose kids about this crap?

Do we live in the american bible belt where people will actually walk around with signs saying god hates you cuz u'r gay?

Hmm.... 10 is young. but, eh. by that age maybe it's good that they learn it and be exposed to it (IN CANADA) since it's more and more socially accepted and more and more kids are being brought up like this.

The "biologically repulsive" argument, as a result, simply doesn't fly.

You had to go out far on a limb there to suggest the argument doesn't fly, so much that I'd say the comparison doesn't fly. David Duke? How about the majority of males in our society, ask them to spend some time thinking about chuggi... i can't even want to finish that sentence.

I'm pretty sure the majority of our male population would not want to finish that thought with any sort of detail, and I'm pretty sure that's not something that's taught to us by our parents and certainly not something that teachers can affect. Just as we can't 'beat the gay' out of gay people, you can't knock some gay into straight people.

With that being said, I don't see why we can't leave it up to the individual to think what they will think on their own. Sex-ed already covers various topics that could be interpreted gender-neutral, such as anal sex in grade 8, and while it was presumably to cover hetero encounters when it was created, I don't see how it could be interpreted differently by different people.

I don't want to go off on a tangent outside of the context of this post as you could easily misinterpret what I'm saying, but I'm suggesting that teachers should not promote one orientation over the other or push students to feel any way or the other from what comes naturally to them. If a student is naturally repulsed by the thought of homosexual forms of intimacy, is it a teacher's job to teach him he shouldn't be? Where do we draw the line on this curriculum topic?

If they want to say, "here kids, here's what's out there... you have your straight people, you have your cross dressers, you have your men that date other men, you have your women that like other women, men that marry multiple women, etc... this stuff's all out there and you should accept the people no matter what they choose... " and leave it at that, I guess I'm fine with that. They're going to learn anyhow, especially if they spend any time in Montreal.

Are you suggesting the same, just a simple presentation to what's out there, or are you suggesting something beyond that?

As I already said, this isn't about sexuality. It's about teaching differences. We share and explore different cultures with younger kids, we shouldn't prevent teachers talking about two mothers or two fathers just because some people might find sex acts between the two repulsive.

To which - if a child naturally finds a black person or an arab repulsive because their skin colour isn't the same as theirs, should it be a teacher's job to teach him that he shouldn't be? This is why I brought up David Duke, because to a man like him the fact that we aren't all repulsed by it makes us, in his mind, mentally ill. Yet, we're all smart enough to know that the world doesn't work like that.

The argument is no different. However, seeing as how you summarized my thought perfectly in your second-to-last paragraph (haha, Montreal) I think we're in agreement here. Kids in Grade 4 probably shouldn't be learning about sex in that detail that young - period. That's something for the older grades. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be taught about the social aspects of it.

You can be repulsed by gay sex all you want, no one here is obviously going to convince you or most other straight guys otherwise. Alas, like I said in my previous message, I may be repulsed by the idea of sex between my parents, but regardless of how repulsed I may be it doesn't mean there is anything wrong with it.

It's a tough one, because despite how open minded I am on this subject, I probably wouldn't like a teaching doing this when kids are so young, either.

Kids at that age are already calling other kids 'homo', 'queer', 'faggot' and 'dyke'. Lots of them have more than a clue, and lots just know that calling other kids those labels is hurtful - yet they do it anyway.

So, yes, I agree that kids should be taught in school because lots of parents won't broach the subject, and lots of parents will simply pass on their own religious-based intolerance.

Kids at that age are already calling other kids 'homo', 'queer', 'faggot' and 'dyke'. Lots of them have more than a clue, and lots just know that calling other kids those labels is hurtful - yet they do it anyway.

I would go so far as to say that a lot of kids use those words without actually knowing what they mean or why they're hurtful, just that they are hurtful.

If you teach a child when they're young enough that it's just as bad to use those words as it is to use a word of racial hatred, you break the cycle of ignorant name calling.

You suggest that kids are using these labels because they're hurtful, so you feel that you should teach a child that they really are hurtful... so they'll stop using them? Just think about that for a second.